Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate pituitary tumor patient satisfaction with telemedicine, patient preference for telemedicine, potential socioeconomic benefit of telemedicine, and patients’ willingness to proceed with surgery based on a telemedicine visit alone. Methods 134 patients who had pituitary surgery and a telemedicine visit during the COVID-19 pandemic (4/23/20-3/4/21) were called to participate in a 13-part questionnaire. Chi-square, ANOVA, and Wilcoxon Rank Sum were used to determine significance. Result Of 134 patients contacted, 90 responded (67%). 95% were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their telemedicine visit, with 62% stating their visit was “the same” or “better” than previous in-person appointments. 82% of patients rated their telemedicine visit as “easy” or “very easy.” On average, patients saved 150 minutes by using telemedicine compared to patient reported in-person visit times. 77% of patients reported the need to take off work for in-person visits, compared to just 12% when using telemedicine. 49% of patients preferred in-person visits, 34% preferred telemedicine, and 17% had no preference. 50% of patients said they would feel comfortable proceeding with surgery based on a telemedicine visit alone. Patients with both initial evaluation and follow-up conducted via telemedicine were more likely to feel comfortable proceeding with surgery based on a telemedicine visit alone compared to patients who had only follow-up telemedicine visits (p=0.051). Conclusion Many pituitary patients patients are satisfied with telemedicine visits and feel comfortable proceeding with surgery based on a telemedicine visit alone. Telemedicine is an important adjunct to increase access to care.
OBJECTIVE Overlapping surgery, in which one attending surgeon manages two overlapping operating rooms (ORs) and is present for all the critical portions of each procedure, is an important policy that improves healthcare access for patients and case volumes for surgeons and surgical trainees. Despite several studies demonstrating the safety and efficacy of overlapping neurosurgical operations, the practice of overlapping surgery remains controversial. To date, there are no studies that have investigated long-term complication rates of overlapping functional and stereotactic neurosurgical procedures. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the 1-year complication rates and OR times for nonoverlapping versus overlapping functional procedures. The secondary objective was to gain insight into what types of complications are the most prevalent and test for differences between groups. METHODS Seven hundred eighty-three functional neurosurgical cases were divided into two cohorts, nonoverlapping (n = 342) and overlapping (n = 441). The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scale score was used to compare the preoperative risk for both cohorts. A complication was defined as any surgically related reason that required readmission, reoperation, or an unplanned emergency department or clinic visit that required intervention. Complications were subdivided into infectious and noninfectious. Chi-square tests, independent-samples t-tests, and uni- and multivariable logistic regressions were used to determine significance. RESULTS There were no significant differences in mean ASA scale score (2.7 ± 0.6 for both groups, p = 0.997) or overall complication rates (8.8% nonoverlapping vs 9.8% overlapping, p = 0.641) between the two cohorts. Infections accounted for the highest percentage of complications in both cohorts (46.6% vs 41.8%, p = 0.686). There were no statistically significant differences between mean in-room OR time (187.5 ± 141.7 minutes vs 197.1 ± 153.0 minutes, p = 0.373) or mean open-to-close time (112.2 ± 107.9 minutes vs 121.0 ± 123.1 minutes, p = 0.300) between nonoverlapping and overlapping cases. CONCLUSIONS There was no increased risk of 1-year complications or increased OR time for overlapping functional and stereotactic neurosurgical procedures compared with nonoverlapping procedures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.